mac5155 wrote: I bet you didn't know but FedEx actually becomes less profitable the higher their volume is, because they simply can't handle it all, so they have to rent additional trucks, pay additional people, and run longer hours. With infrastructure upgrades, sure they could probably do it. Just because they arent putting your envelope in your mailbox doesn't mean they arent delivering it?

I find this very hard to believe. Sounds like their costs go up, but that doesn't mean their profit decreases. Otherwise, FedEx would want less business? That is bizarre.

They plan to run at full capacity for the majority of the time. There are times when they are over capacity, which results in them having to purchase transportation, workers, etc. outside of normal operating budgets.

Well, they would obviously need to expand capacity. Then it becomes a matter of whether or not the capital expenditures required to maintain that service will be met by revenue projections. I would say probably not given the downward trajectory of regular mail volume.

mac5155 wrote:They could, because as pointed out earlier by a postal worker, they wouldnt require $5 billion a year be pushed to employee benefits. Take away the government pensions and I doubt that the service would be that much more.

Funny thing about those pensions.....

A short time ago, Congress mandated that the USPS fully pre-fund their anticipated pension liabilities for the next 75 years..... and they gave them 10 years to hit that mark.

Think about the utter absurdity of that; the USPS has to has to have the money in reserve to pay the pension of a hypothetical employee who won't be born for another ten or twelve years. How many private sector companies have that sort of burden? What would happen if a law was passed making it illegal to not pre-fund your employee's pensions?

Plus, because of differences in accounting methodology the USPS has overpaid into the Civil Service Retirement System something like $85 billion. GAO says their claim is not valid and so the Treasury won't refund the money, stating that the method of calculating the splits employed by the Office of Personnel Management (who shares responsibility for funding the USPS pension) is “consistent with applicable law"...... which sounds a lot like something someone says when they've been caught exploiting a loophole in a regulation.

Take away the absurd pre-fund rule and give them back their pension overpayments and the USPS suddenly is no longer a money loser.